Can the word κῆρυξ be read as a predicate (in adverbial use, of manner or, perhaps, of purpose).H. W. Smyth insists on adjectives functioning this way... Nothing about substantives like κῆρυξ ...

In other words: does translation goes like 1) "For, who will volunteer to go as delegate (?) since he has killed delegates?", or like 2) "Which delegate will volunteer to go since he has killed delegates?"

My problem is that on contextual parameters I tend to believe that the subject is τίς and not κῆρυξ, so I prefer the 1st attempt "as delegate" ,

Can it be just a simple predicate, even without a copula like "εἰμί" or other? After a quick search only in Xenophon's corpus I found the same problem with cases such as

Can the word κῆρυξ be read as a predicate (in adverbial use, of manner or, perhaps, of purpose).H. W. Smyth insists on adjectives functioning this way... Nothing about substantives like κῆρυξ ...

The nature of the omitted copula can make it read like an adverb. For instance, if you supply DOKE/W, PHAI/NW or the passive of KALE/W as copula you would get the sense of your first option.

Swth\r wrote:In other words: does translation goes like 1) "For, who will volunteer to go as delegate (?) since he has killed delegates?", or like 2) "Which delegate will volunteer to go since he has killed delegates?"

My problem is that on contextual parameters I tend to believe that the subject is τίς and not κῆρυξ, so I prefer the 1st attempt "as delegate" ,

Can it be just a simple predicate, even without a copula like "εἰμί" or other?

Bert wrote:1) The nature of the omitted copula can make it read like an adverb. For instance, if you supply DOKE/W, PHAI/NW or the passive of KALE/W as copula you would get the sense of your first option.

2) According to Smyth the copula is often omitted. (944-948)

1) And what form exactly do you see missing in this sentence? I can not add any type of the verbs that you have proposed (δοκῶ, φαίνω, καλῶ)

2) I already have in mind these paragraphs from Smyth; but I am not seeing any relation to the matter... Can you be more specific please? I quote from Smyth:

H.W.Smyth wrote:944. Ellipsis of the Copula.—The copulative verb εἶναι is often omitted, especially the forms ἐστί and εἰσί. This occurs chiefly a. In general or proverbial statements: ““κοινὴ ἡ τύχη καὶ τὸ μέλλον ἀόρατον” chance is common to all and the future cannot be scanned” I. 1.29; b. in expressions of necessity, duty, etc.: ““ἀνάγκη φυλάττεσθαι” it is necessary to be on our guard” D. 9.6. So with ὥρα, καιρός, εἰκός, χρεών, δέον, verbals in -τέον (2152), as ““θεραπευτέον τοὺς θεούς” we must serve the gods” X. M. 2.1.28; c. with various adjectives: ἄξιος, δυνατός, πρόθυμος, δίκαιος, οἷος, φροῦδος, ἕτοιμος; thus, ““ἡ ψυχὴ δουλεύειν ἑτοίμη” the soul is ready to be a servant” P. Phae. 252a, ““εἴ τις ἐπερωτῴη πότερον κρεῖττον” if anybody should ask whether it is better” X. M. 1.1.9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------945. Other forms of εἶναι are less commonly omitted: κοινωνεῖν ἕτοιμος (scil. εἰμί), οἶμαι δὲ καὶ Λάχητα τόνδε (scil. ἕτοιμον εἶναι) I am ready to assist you and I think that Laches here is also ready P. Lach. 180a, οὐ σὺ λογογράφος (scil. εἶ); are you not a speech-writer? D. 19.250, νὺξ ἐν μέσῳ (scil. ἦν) the night was half gone Aes. 3.71, ἄτοπα λέγεις καὶ οὐδαμῶς πρὸς σοῦ (scil. ὄντα) you are talking absurdly and not at all like yourself X. M. 2.3.15, τοῖς θεοῖς μεγίστη χάρις (scil. ἔστω) to the gods let our heartiest thanks be given X. C. 7.5.72. Cp. 1041. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------946. In lively discourse the form of a verb signifying to do, speak, come, go, etc., may be omitted for brevity. The ellipsis is often unconscious and it is frequently uncertain what is to be supplied to complete the thought. Thus, τί ἄλλο (scil. ἐποίησαν) ἢ ἐπεβούλευσαν; what else did they do except plot against us? T. 3.39, οὐδὲν ἄλλο (scil. ποιῶν) ἢ πόλιν τὴν αὑτοῦ ἀπολείπων doing nothing else except leaving his native city 2. 16, ἵνα τί (scil. γένηται); to what purpose? D. 19.257, περὶ μὲν τούτου κατὰ σχολήν (scil. λέξω) about this by and by 24. 187, μή μοί γε μύθους (scil. λέξητε) none of your legends for me! Ar. Vesp. 1179, ἀλλ᾽ (σκέψασθε) ἕτερον but consider another point L. 13.79, ὦ φίλε Φαῖδρε, ποῖ δὴ (scil. εἶ) καὶ πόθεν (scil. ἥκεις); my dear Phaedrus whither, I beg of you, are you going and whence do you come? P. Phae. 227a, οὐκ ἐς κόρακας (scil. ἐρρήσεις); will you not be off to the crows? Ar. Nub. 871, πρός σε (scil. ἱκετεύω) γονάτων I entreat thee by thy knees E. Med. 324. Cp. 1599. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------947. Καὶ ταῦτα and that too takes up a preceding expression: ““ἀγριωτέρους αὐτοὺς ἀπέφηνε . . . καὶ ταῦτ᾽ εἰς αὑτόν” he made them more savage and that too towards himself” P. G. 516c; often with concessive participles (2083): Μένωνα δ᾽ οὐκ ἐζήτει, καὶ ταῦτα παρ᾽ Ἀριαίου ὢν τοῦ Μένωνος ξένου he did not ask for Menon and that too although he came from Ariaeus, Menon's guest-friend X. A. 2.4.15. Cp. 1246, 2083. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------948. A verb that may easily be supplied from the context is often omitted. Thus, ἐὰν μάθω, παύσομαι (scil. ποιῶν) ὅ γε ἄκων ποιῶ if I learn better, I shall leave off doing what I do unintentionally P. A. 26a, ἀμελήσας ὧνπερ οἱ πολλοί (scil. ἐπιμελοῦνται) not caring for what most men care for 36 b, ἐὰν αὖθις ζητήσετε ταῦτα, οὕτως (scil. ἔχοντα) εὑρήσετε if you inquire about this later, you will find that it is so 24 b. See under Brachylogy (Index).

Bert wrote:1) The nature of the omitted copula can make it read like an adverb. For instance, if you supply DOKE/W, PHAI/NW or the passive of KALE/W as copula you would get the sense of your first option.

1) And what form exactly do you see missing in this sentence? I can not add any type of the verbs that you have proposed (δοκῶ, φαίνω, καλῶ)

(Is this aimed at me for a silly proposal or is it a reflection of how you feel?) First off I want to say that I think you are more knowledgeable in Greek than I am. I am not answering because I know exactly what I am talking about but I'm answering in the hope that we both might learn.I may be making grammatical blunders but if so, please point them out. How about something like;τίς γὰρ ἐθελήσει ἰέναι φαίνεται εἴναι κῆρυξ κήρυκας ἀπεκτονώς;τίς γὰρ ἐθελήσει ἰέναι ἐκλήθη κῆρυξ κήρυκας ἀπεκτονώς;τίς γὰρ ἐθελήσει ἰέναι κῆρυξ δοκῶν κήρυκας ἀπεκτονώς; (Maybe like this instead: τίς γὰρ ἐθελήσει ἰέναι δοκῶν εἴναι κῆρυξ κήρυκας ἀπεκτονώς;)

Swth\r wrote:

Bert wrote:2) According to Smyth the copula is often omitted. (944-948)

I already have in mind these paragraphs from Smyth; but I am not seeing any relation to the matter... Can you be more specific please? I quote from Smyth:....

I don't understand. You asked:

Can it be just a simple predicate, even without a copula like "εἰμί" or other?

I was so sure I had posted a reply earlier! Anyway, I still don't have any grammar books around but I am quite sure I remember correctly. Verbs that show movement often take a predicate of purpose which, when a noun, is most often (if not always; It's not as if I have anything close to perfect memory ) a substantive indicating a (future) attribute/capacity such as, for instance, βοηθός. I think that's the case here.

IreneY wrote:I was so sure I had posted a reply earlier! Anyway, I still don't have any grammar books around but I am quite sure I remember correctly. Verbs that show movement often take a predicate of purpose which, when a noun, is most often (if not always; It's not as if I have anything close to perfect memory ) a substantive indicating a (future) attribute/capacity such as, for instance, βοηθός. I think that's the case here.

Χρόνια πολλά Ειρήνη!

I wouldn't say so, Irene. Because βοηθός is often used as adjective; all grammars say that (and also τιμωρός etc.); so according to the rule they may be used as predicates... The same with ἡγεμών [Xen. Anab. "ἀλλ' ἕπεσθε ἡγεμόνι τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ καὶ ἀλλήλους παρακαλεῖτε ὀνομαστί." "θυομένῳ δὲ αὐτῷ τῷ ἡγεμόνι Ἡρακλεῖ καὶ κοινουμένῳ, πότερα... "] But κῆρυξ, στρατηγός, ναύαρχος? In what sense can they be adjectives? Of course I understand that their meaning includes attribute, and I see your point (this is what I have in mind also), but trying to go "by the law" (grammar-syntax) I can not say that they are predicates or predicatives... But I am not so sure yet... My linguistic instict says so, but my readings forbit me from this thnking for the moment...

Last edited by Swth\r on Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Bert wrote:1) The nature of the omitted copula can make it read like an adverb. For instance, if you supply DOKE/W, PHAI/NW or the passive of KALE/W as copula you would get the sense of your first option.

1) And what form exactly do you see missing in this sentence? I can not add any type of the verbs that you have proposed (δοκῶ, φαίνω, καλῶ)

(Is this aimed at me for a silly proposal or is it a reflection of how you feel?)First off I want to say that I think you are more knowledgeable in Greek than I am. I am not answering because I know exactly what I am talking about but I'm answering in the hope that we both might learn.I may be making grammatical blunders but if so, please point them out. How about something like;τίς γὰρ ἐθελήσει ἰέναι φαίνεται εἴναι κῆρυξ κήρυκας ἀπεκτονώς;τίς γὰρ ἐθελήσει ἰέναι ἐκλήθη κῆρυξ κήρυκας ἀπεκτονώς;τίς γὰρ ἐθελήσει ἰέναι κῆρυξ δοκῶν κήρυκας ἀπεκτονώς; (Maybe like this instead: τίς γὰρ ἐθελήσει ἰέναι δοκῶν εἴναι κῆρυξ κήρυκας ἀπεκτονώς;)

Swth\r wrote:

Bert wrote:2) According to Smyth the copula is often omitted. (944-948)

I already have in mind these paragraphs from Smyth; but I am not seeing any relation to the matter... Can you be more specific please? I quote from Smyth:....

I don't understand. You asked:

Can it be just a simple predicate, even without a copula like "εἰμί" or other?

I answered:

According to Smyth the copula is often omitted. (944-948)

Isn't that what you were asking about?

Dear friend "Bert", I answer in reference to the underlined phrases.At first, I did not mean to offend you or something like that! My english is not so good, I am not a native speaker and perhaps I expressed myself in a not kind way. I am sorry if you felt like that! I hope that the missunderstanding is ended...

My friend, I do not feel like knowing exceptionally understanding or using Greek, and that is why I posted this thread, in order to get some help.

Furthermore, I wanted to say that I just don't see the reason to "import" into the sentence words that are not implied by any other reason (such as the copulas mentioned by you before). In Smyth's paragraphes is said that a copula should be there, but for some reasons it is not (you can see that the phrases don not have verb, or an infinitive is missing, etc.). So, my question in other words was if a simple predicate can be found without the need of implying a copula to suppost it, as in the examples cited by me.

§910. Predicate Nouns.--Nouns (substantival or adjectival) are often used as complements to the predicate. Thus,

a. A predicate substantive is a substantive forming part of the predicate and asserting something of its substantive: Περικλῆς ᾑρέθη στρατηγός Pericles was elected general, εἵλεσθε ἐκεῖνον πρεσβευτήν you elected him envoy L. 13.10 .

§910. Predicate Nouns.--Nouns (substantival or adjectival) are often used as complements to the predicate. Thus,

a. A predicate substantive is a substantive forming part of the predicate and asserting something of its substantive: Περικλῆς ᾑρέθη στρατηγός Pericles was elected general, εἵλεσθε ἐκεῖνον πρεσβευτήν you elected him envoy L. 13.10 .

... just as in English?

The difference lies upon the verb: "ᾑρέθη, εἵλεσθε" are actually copulas. By them attribute is assigned (στρατηγός, στρατηγόν). On the other hand, in the passages cited by me the verbs can not be copulas; they rather are verbs of motion...

My English is not so good... Can someone say in English: "They send him general", "He came admiral"??? Isn't it "as" needed? Like "He came as admiral", "They sent him as general"?

Swth\r wrote:The difference lies upon the verb: "ᾑρέθη, εἵλεσθε" are actually copulas. By them attribute is assigned (στρατηγός, στρατηγόν). On the other hand, in the passages cited by me the verbs can not be copulas; they rather are verbs of motion...

My English is not so good... Can someone say in English: "They send him general", "He came admiral"??? Isn't it "as" needed? Like "He came as admiral", "They sent him as general"?

I'm not sure but, because one is made a general by election, but what makes one a delegate is by "going" somewhere else (to report something)? I'll have to look up if it is so.

Swth\r wrote:The difference lies upon the verb: "ᾑρέθη, εἵλεσθε" are actually copulas. By them attribute is assigned (στρατηγός, στρατηγόν). On the other hand, in the passages cited by me the verbs can not be copulas; they rather are verbs of motion...

My English is not so good... Can someone say in English: "They send him general", "He came admiral"??? Isn't it "as" needed? Like "He came as admiral", "They sent him as general"?

I'm not sure but, because one is made a general by election, but what makes one a delegate is by "going" somewhere else (to report something)? I'll have to look up if it is so.

Happy new yeat to everyone! Εὐτυχὲς τὸ νέον ἔτος ἅπασιν ὑμῖν!

You are right my friend to think this way. This is exactly the point. But I can not find anything relative in any grammar book that I have read... This is now the kind of help that I need. Help in argumentation.

I see the embedded sentence as containing the noun, but with an implied named subject which would be filled in by answering τίς — (Σωκράτης) κῆρυξ ἔρχεται κήρυκας ἀπεκτονώς. I don't see τίς and κῆρυξ as either in agreement (predicative or attributive) or in apposition. κῆρυξ is in a separate sub-clause.

I see the embedded sentence as containing the noun, but with an implied named subject which would be filled in by answering τίς — (Σωκράτης) κῆρυξ ἔρχεται κήρυκας ἀπεκτονώς. I don't see τίς and κῆρυξ as either in agreement (predicative or attributive) or in apposition. κῆρυξ is in a separate sub-clause.

Οκ... Now I am much more confused ... 1) What do you mean by "embedded sentence"??? 2) In the sentence "Σωκράτης κῆρυξ ἔρχεται κήρυκας ἁπεκτονώς." what is the syntactic position/function of "κῆρυξ "?

Swth\r wrote:Οκ... Now I am much more confused ... 1) What do you mean by "embedded sentence"???

Well, "subordinate clause" would work here, too. Here's a simple sentence: οἴκαδε εἶμι, “I will go home.” When I drop that into another sentence — possibly with modification to satisfy grammar requirements — it is embedded, ἐθέλω οἴκαδε ἰέναι, “I want to go home.”

2) In the sentence "Σωκράτης κῆρυξ ἔρχεται κήρυκας ἁπεκτονώς." what is the syntactic position/function of "κῆρυξ "?

It is in apposition, exactly the sort of situation where we get to use a phrase like "as a delegate" (Goodwin & Gulick §916; Smyth §986).

Edit: d'oh! I misinterpreted the subject of this post, thinking it was "predicate or attributive."

Ok. Now somehow I get it... You say that "τίς κῆρυξ" is the same like "ἁνὴρ κῆρυξ"? I ask you because this construction never appears in phrases like "ὁ ἀνὴρ γέρων, οἱ ἄνδρες δικασταὶ" or "ἄνδρες οἱ δικασταὶ, ἄνδρες οἱ στρατιῶται" etc. Have you seen all passages quoted by me? Do you thing the same happens with cases like "ἀφικνεῖται Ἱέραξ ναύαρχος"? Isn't it different from "ἀφικνεῖται Ἱέραξ ὁ ναύαρχος"? Sometimes you can find the noun denoting occupation before the substantive (καταλιπόντες στρατηγόν ... Σοφαίνετον)? Is it the same? Also, in dictionaries it is said that words like "ἀνήρ,γέρων, ἡγεμών..." are used as adjectives. But I can not find such a thing for those words (ναύαρχος, στρατηγός, ΄κῆρυξ, ἐπιστολεύς, ...) ...

Edit: if something is embedded, like "κῆρυξ" here, shouldn't it be in accusative, like: "τίς γὰρ ἐθελήσει κήρυκα ἰέναι κήρυκας ἀπεκτονότα/ἀπεκτονώς;" Shouldn't it be infinitive with subject in accusative?

Swth\r wrote:Ok. Now somehow I get it... You say that "τίς κῆρυξ" is the same like "ἁνὴρ κῆρυξ"?

Not exactly, but close. It cannot be τίς κῆρυξ because these two words are in different clauses — they cannot modify each other. However, the answer to τίς is implicit in the subordinate clause, which I do think will be acting like ἀνὴρ κῆρυξ. I mean, we can also say, κῆρυξ εἶ, “you will go as delegate.” The first partner in an apposition relationship need not be explicit if it is implicit in the grammar.

Edit: if something is embedded, like "κῆρυξ" here, shouldn't it be in accusative, like: "τίς γὰρ ἐθελήσει κήρυκα ἰέναι κήρυκας ἀπεκτονότα/ἀπεκτονώς;" Shouldn't it be infinitive with subject in accusative?

Not if the subject of ἐθέλω is the same as the subject of the embedded clause.

I think "will volunteer" links the "who" and the "to go (as a) delegate..." just as if it were a form of the verb "be" instead, saying "who is to go (as a) delegate...". In this context, therefore, it seems to make more sense to consider it a "predicate".

Swth\r wrote:Ok. Now somehow I get it... You say that "τίς κῆρυξ" is the same like "ἁνὴρ κῆρυξ"?

Not exactly, but close. It cannot be τίς κῆρυξ because these two words are in different clauses — they cannot modify each other. However, the answer to τίς is implicit in the subordinate clause, which I do think will be acting like ἀνὴρ κῆρυξ. I mean, we can also say, κῆρυξ εἶ, “you will go as delegate.” The first partner in an apposition relationship need not be explicit if it is implicit in the grammar.

Edit: if something is embedded, like "κῆρυξ" here, shouldn't it be in accusative, like: "τίς γὰρ ἐθελήσει κήρυκα ἰέναι κήρυκας ἀπεκτονότα/ἀπεκτονώς;" Shouldn't it be infinitive with subject in accusative?

Not if the subject of ἐθέλω is the same as the subject of the embedded clause.

Sorry if I insist on this, but I need to understand your point... So please consider the following in reference to the underlined phrases quoted from your last reply post.

1) You speak about "subordinate clause", but there is no conjunction in order to introduce such a clause here. What do you mean by "subordinate clause"? What kind of clause is it?

2) I even am so unfamiliar with the term "embedded clause" that I am incapable of following you at all... This is all "Greek" to me... Can you cite for me a reference...? I have never read anything alike...

I would appreciate it if you -please- answered some of the following questions... What do the two clauses consist of? Do you read it like a question and an answer? "Τίς γὰρ ἐθελήσει ἰένάι κήρυκας ἀπεκτονώς; - (Ἀνὴρ) κῆρυξ ἐθελήσει ἰέναι." ( ) Something else...? I still can not understand exactly your point. Pergaps it would be helpfull to give an example of a similar construction in English?

Swth\r wrote:1) You speak about "subordinate clause", but there is no conjunction in order to introduce such a clause here. What do you mean by "subordinate clause"? What kind of clause is it?

Greek has several kinds of subordinate clause which do not require a conjunction, such as the infinitive + accusative construction used in some kinds of indirect discourse.

2) I even am so unfamiliar with the term "embedded clause" that I am incapable of following you at all... This is all "Greek" to me... Can you cite for me a reference...? I have never read anything alike...

I'm just using linguistic terms for what most people know as subordinate clauses (and relative clauses, which are closely related).

I would appreciate it if you -please- answered some of the following questions... What do the two clauses consist of? Do you read it like a question and an answer? "Τίς γὰρ ἐθελήσει ἰένάι κήρυκας ἀπεκτονώς; - (Ἀνὴρ) κῆρυξ ἐθελήσει ἰέναι."

That's a good way to explain my analysis, yes.

Something else...? I still can not understand exactly your point. Pergaps it would be helpfull to give an example of a similar construction in English?

Sure, I can give the English.

Here's a clause (one that happens to make up a complete sentence): I will go home.

Now that we have this little clause we can dump it into other sentences to say more complex things. For example, "he said that I would go home." Notice that the wording of the "I will go home" clause has been modified somewhat, due to requirements of grammar (will > would, like a switch to the subjunctive, say, in some languages). Another example is, "he wants me to go home." Here we have the verb "want," which uses the accusative + infinitive construction, so "I will go home" is transformed into "me to go home." Finally, in "I want to go home," since the subject of the "want" and the subject of the subordinate clause are the same, we don't need to state the subject in the subordinate clause.

I made the effort to say that τίς and κῆρυξ don't go together directly because words in one clause don't agree or directly interact with words in other clauses in the same sentence (excepting relative clauses, of course, which are a bit different and not relevant here — we will also ignore prolepsis for now).

annis wrote:Here's a clause (one that happens to make up a complete sentence): I will go home.

Now that we have this little clause we can dump it into other sentences to say more complex things. For example, "he said that I would go home." Notice that the wording of the "I will go home" clause has been modified somewhat, due to requirements of grammar (will > would, like a switch to the subjunctive, say, in some languages). Another example is, "he wants me to go home." Here we have the verb "want," which uses the accusative + infinitive construction, so "I will go home" is transformed into "me to go home." Finally, in "I want to go home," since the subject of the "want" and the subject of the subordinate clause are the same, we don't need to state the subject in the subordinate clause.

I made the effort to say that τίς and κῆρυξ don't go together directly because words in one clause don't agree or directly interact with words in other clauses in the same sentence (excepting relative clauses, of course, which are a bit different and not relevant here — we will also ignore prolepsis for now).

Ok. Now I have got you point. (At last! ) Your example in english is understood by me as in greek.

He wants [me to go] not He wants [*I to go]Ἐθέλει [μὲ ἰέναι] not Ἐθέλει [*ἐγὼ ἰέναι]

In the above (blue) construction the word "κῆρυξ" can be added either in the independed or in the depended verbal phrase. In the independed it should be a nominative, in the depended an accusative. In other words, If you want to attach "κῆρυξ" to an implied subject of "ἰέναι", this one should be in accusative; if to the subject of "ἐθελήσει", in nominative; isn't it?

The first means: for which delegate will volunteer to go, since he has killed delegates? (nice, but not acceptable in context)In the second case "volunteer" can not be used in translation of course. The followwing: "For who will volunteer *someone else to go as delegate, since he (=who) has killed delegates?" is an ungrammatic sentence. Now the meaning should be like: Who will have the will (someone else) to go (as) delegate , since he (=who) has killed delegates?

Conclusion: Because of the nominative (κῆρυξ) it is necessary that "ἐθελήσει" and "ἰέναι" share a common subject. For if they had different subjects, it should be an accusative+infinitive construction.

But lets try something else, please, which in my oppinion is going to make things clearer. Lets consider that the verb "ἐθελήσει " is not present in the sentence, and the verbal person is the 1st one. This undepended structure would be:

I think the grammatical behaviour between "who" and "coward" is in the same category as saying "Who is going to be a coward...", just with the verb "will" being used instead.

Exactly the same situation! What are syntactically "a coward", "a hero"? Aren't they predicates?

EDIT:

Essorant wrote:I think "will volunteer" links the "who" and the "to go (as a) delegate..." just as if it were a form of the verb "be" instead, saying "who is to go (as a) delegate...". In this context, therefore, it seems to make more sense to consider it a "predicate".

I hope that makes sense

Ok, now I saw your previous reply... This is what I have in mind... Mingshey said also the same before. Can we find a reference in Grammar?